Brito-Sandoval P, Espinosa-Soto IC, Ramírez-Estudillo JA, Lima-Gómez V

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 136-140
PDF size: 172.61 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the frequency of anatomic and functional success, between eyes with uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachment treated with exoplant or vitrectomy. Method: Non-experimental, retrospective, comparative and longitudinal study in patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, ‹20/200 visual acuity and macular involvement, treated with exoplant (group 1) or vitrectomy (group 2), and 9 months follow up, without proliferative vitreoretinopathy or other vitreoretinal disease that reduced vision. The frequencies of anatomic success (attached retina) and functional success (visual acuity › 20/200) were compared between groups at the end of follow up (chi squared and odds ratio). Results: 114 patients, mean age 48.5 ± 16.6 years, mean detachment duration 49.8 ± 32.0 days; group 1 had 33 subjects (28.9%) and group 2 had 81 (71.1%). Anatomic success was achieved in 27 subjects of group 1 (81.8%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 68.7-95) and in 74 of group 2 (91.4%; 95% CI: 85.2-97.5; p = 0.1); 14 subjects of group 1 (42.4%) and 21 of group 2 (25.9) had functional success (p = 0.1). Discussion: In our media, the frequencies of anatomic and functional success after treating rhegmatogenous retinal detachment did not differ between exoplant and vitrectomy. Early detection should be favored, to increase the frequency of postoperative visual improvement.

REFERENCES

1. Ho VY, Wehmeier JM, Shah GK. Wide-field infrared imaging. A descriptive review of characteristics of retinoschisis, retinal detachment and schisis detachments. Retina. 2016;36:1439-45.

2. Mitry D, Charteris DG, Fleck BW, Campbell H, Singh J. The epidemiology of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: geographical variation and clinical associations. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:678-84.

3. Chen SN, Lian IB, Wei YJ. Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in Taiwan. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:1216-20.

4. Kang HM, Lee CS, Park HJ, Lee KH, Byeon SH, Koh HJ, et al. Characteristics of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment after refractive surgery: comparison with myopic eyes with retinal detachment. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157 666-72.

5. Bjerrum SS, Mikkelsen KL, La Cour M. Risk of pseudophakic retinal detachment in 202,226 patients using the fellow nonoperated eye as reference. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2573-9.

6. Schaal S, Sherman MP, Barr CC, Kaplan HJ. Primary retinal detachment repair. Comparison of 1-year outcomes of four surgical techniques. Retina. 2011;31:1500-4.

7. Adelman RA, Parnes AJ, Michalewska Z, Ducournau D. The European Vitreo-Retinal Society (EVRS) Retinal Detachment Study Group. Clinical variables associated with failure of retinal detachment repair. The European Vitreo-Retinal Society detachment study report number 4. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:1715-9.

8. Kobayashi M, Iwase T, Yamamoto K, Ra E, Murotani K, Matsui S, et al. Association between photoreceptor regeneration and visual acuity following surgery for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:889-98.

9. Hang JC. Regional practice patterns for retinal detachment repair in the United States. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:1125-8.

10. Adelman RA, Parnes AJ, Ducournau D, the European Vitreo-Retinal Society (EVRS) Retinal Detachment Study Group. Strategy for the management of uncomplicated retinal detachments. The European Vitreo- Retinal Society Retinal Detachment Study Report 1. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1804-8.

11. Rush R, Simunovic MP, Sheth S, Chang A, Hunyor AP. 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy versus scleral buckling versus combines pars plana vitrectomy-scleral buckling for medium complexity retinal detachment repair. Asia-Pac J Ophthalmol. 2014;3:215-9.

12. Al-Hinai AS, Al-Abri MS. Outcome of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair: experience of a tertiary center in Oman. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2013;6:179-82.

13. Schaal S, Sherman MP, Barr CC, Kaplan HJ. Primary retinal detachment repair. Comparison of 1-year outcomes of four surgical techniques. Retina. 2011;31:1500-4.

14. van de Put MAJ, Croonen D, Nolte IM, Japing WJ, Hooymans JMM, Los LI. Postoperative recovery of visual function after macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99787.

15. Doyle E, Herbert EN, Bunce C, Williamson TH, Laidlaw DAH. How effective is macula-off retinal detachment surgery? Might good outcome be predicted? Eye. 2007;21:534-40.

16. Cho M, Witmer MT, Favarone G, Chan RVP, D’Amico DJ, Kiss S. Optical coherence tomography predicts visual outcome in macula-involving rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:91-6.

17. Wicham L, Bunce C, Wong D, Charteris DG. Retinal detachment repair by vitrectomy: simplified formulae to estimate the risk of failure. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:1239-44.

18. Mitry D, Awan MA, Borooah S, Rehman Siddiqui MA, Brogan K, Fleck BW, et al. Surgical outcome and risk stratification for primary retinal detachment repair: results from the Scottish Retinal Detachment Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:730-4.

19. Noori J, Bilonick RA, Eller AW. Scleral buckle surgery for primary retinal detachment without posterior vitreous detachment. Retina. 2016;36: 2066-71.

20. Wong CW, Yeo IY, Loh BK, Wong EY, Wong DW, Ong SG, et al. Scleral buckling versus vitrectomy in the management of macula-off primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Retina. 2015.35:2552-7.